Are Our Bunkers Too Perfect?

[Andrew Buck]

Well let's see Andrew... The sand wedge was introduced in 1935.  Tom Bendelow died in 1936.  Somehow I doubt Bendelow put this in his pipe and smoked it:

http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/construction/bunkers/How-to-Select-the-Best-Sand-for-Your-Bunkers/

Fair, I am sure they were deemed a harder hazard in 1916 for average golfers.  I have no clue how much Morrish altered his original design either.  That said, equipment has made every aspect of the game easier, so the question to Richards concern remains;  Are they still in harmony with his intent?  Do most players try to avoid them now as they would have in that day?  Do they provide a more stern challenge at recovery for almost all players, as they did in that day?  

I don't take you for the type who believes in altering courses to counter equipment advances.  This thread started with the question of have bunkers lost strategic value due to perfect maintenance, and Dallas CC was an example of a course that bought this practice to the extreme.  I would suggest that to 99% of the people they have not lost their strategic value.  I am not a bad bunker player, but they certainly impact the way I play a hole, and the line I take at pins.  This impact is greatest on fairway sand traps, where I'll gladly tee off with a 3 wood and leave myself a longer approach on many holes as opposed to hitting driver into a pinched landing zone.  The one area where the impact is probably minimized is they generally are not great enough hazard to force me to layup on the second shot of a well guarded par 5.  It's generally worth the risk of a greenside/bunker for the reward of an eagle putt, vs. leaving myself a fairway lob wedge.  

[Andrew Buck]

For a player who can hit a 6-iron 180 yards in the air, having a forced carry of 150 yards over a pond and landing in a fairway that's 30 yards wide is NO PROBLEM. Even a club he can hit straight, high and accurately 99.9% of the time will clear that pond with 25+ yards to spare. Heck he can catch it fat or thin and clear the water with room to spare.

Yet for me, with that carry, I'm looking at hitting at least my 4-wood and if there's a breeze in a face I might hit driver just to be safe. And a fairway 30 yards wide with a driver or fairway wood is pretty darned narrow, I'll probably miss that fairway half the time. Especially given the pressure of knowing that a dropkick or thinned shot is going in the drink.

That's exactly what a high-lipped, greenside bunker is for an elite player vs. myself. He can get the ball on the green even from a horrible plugged lie and from a normal lie will get it inside of 10 feet more often than not. For me I might hit one shot a week inside 10 feet from a bunker and at least once a week I'll miss the green with a bunker shot from a perfect lie. From a plugged lie? One swing to unplug it and another to get it out would be typical.

A lot of these bloody-minded proposals are akin to saying that the pond carry ought to be 220 yards instead of 150 and/or the fairway 20 yards wide instead of 30. After all, the pond is supposed to be a hazard. Anyone who can play well beyond it with a 6-iron might as well not be facing the hazard at all!

Very well said. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - seems to me you're asking a question that only a true professional would ask. The definition of a true professional? In my books, someone who values and honours his own aesthetic tastes/style and creative principles but at the same time respects the nature of the craftsman-client relationship and never forgets the service he is meant to provide to the end-user, the public.  It's a knife edge, it seems to me, and the more experience/knowledge and care and expertise a professional has, the sharper that edge is and the harder it is to walk. I don't have any answers for you (not surprisingly), and the only advice I can offer is "keep the question always in your mind', hold it, as it were, on that knife edge, and hope that one day the balance of competing interests shifts in the right and best direction.

Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

 I'll be more reflective next time when my playing partner complains after his second or third lie in a heel print on a $200+ resort course and reference this wonderful thread.  

Lou,

maybe your comment show what has gone so wrong with the USA style market. Funny how so many clubs in this $200+ GF culture are going bust whilst here in the UK I have not heard of many going bankrupt in the past 5 years. Perhaps for the long term welfare of golf in the USA your playing partner should be willing to accept a few footprints in the sand in return for a more realistic greenfee.

Jon

[Jud_T]

Brent/Andrew,

A pond or OB is an immutable hazard,  i. e. hit one, drop 2, hit 3.  (Which is why they suck as hazards ).  Comparing a bunker is inappropriate.  Bunkers give one a choice as to what type of shot to play, where to play it or whether to play it at all.  The point is A) if it penalizes weaker players to an inordinate degree on a relative basis and 2) if due to pristine modern imported sand, reduction of depth or lips over time or simply aesthetic rather than strategic design they don't present an interesting hazard in terms of the shot decision process mentioned above then we've dumbed things down.  Another important point that may not have been mentioned is the impact of renovated flatter greens to accomodate faster speed and what that does to the aforementioned bunker play decision-making process.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

I haven't really checked the stats recently, but in reality, the courses closing in the USA are the mom and pop types as golfers go to the "better courses".  Now, I know you are correct and many higher end courses are struggling, too.  Not sure its bunker maintenance, but a whole passel of things, starting with $13-40M in debt they could probably never service.

Part of my take in contratrian but also rooted in reality.  a few weeks ago I posted how hard the bunkers at La Costa are for average Joes.  They had a Mid Am qualifier out there this week and the 0-8 handicap players in the field struggled in the bunkers quite a bit too, much more than design partner on the project Steve Pate did when we played there with him.

Don't know his stats on the senior tour, but Steve is not a Phil who gets it up and down at 70%.  It was instructive to see how much better he was than even good ams in the sand.  In short, these guys are good.  Not sure how much they pick up stroke wise with perfect bunkers, but does it really matter?  Everyone in the field has the same golf course no matter how much the bunkers are manicured.  I understand why they want to minimize the element of luck and let the skill shine through.  

And, if better bunkers allows something other than a banger an advantage, well then, all the better.  And if it equalizes it (which the stats don't show) then I am not sure what we can do.  Rationalize that the tournament endings should be that much more exciting because the score differential comes closer.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou, I am not sure how to communicate this any better. But I am probably wasting my breath and you are not listening.

Golf course architecture, a lot like other design/artistic ventures, is about harmony and balance. When an architect places a bunker, he is placing it hoping that it produces the kind of challenge that is in harmony with the rest of the features of the hole. There is balance that needs to be maintained for the hole to be played as intended.

It is just like watching an image on the TV and increasing the saturation of the color. If you increase the saturation of the color evenly, the resulting picture will be in balance and pleasing. However, if you increase the saturation of all colors with exception of green, the resulting picture will not be in balance and will not be pleasing.

I don't understand how advocating balance reflecting the architect's intent is somehow something that should be shouted down.

Richard,

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am not listening.  And it is not your communication that needs improvement; but perhaps the rigidity of your thinking.  As to being shouted down, please!

It is not a question of balance (no Moody Blues tangents intended), but of opinion or preference.  Take your television metaphor for example.  If an utopian balance existed, why would there be a need to provide setting adjustments?  Just hard-wire the thing to Choi's notion of desirable balance and be done with it.  Or maybe some people prefer a brighter image, others like more muted colors, a few may even prefer a garish green hue.  Ditto for golf.  Mike Nuzzo is proud that his baby only has a half dozen (or so) greenside bunkers and sees no need for more.  Oakmont has over 200 bunkers and it is a top 10 course in most lists.  Golf is a big world (TE Paul, circa 2004).

Ian's assertion couched as a question with a philosophical tone is interesting.  Some here might assign greater weight to his views because he works as a golf architect and probably spends quite a bit of time entertaining such things.  I tend to value the assessment of the marketplace more, and I doubt most folks agree with Ian, Tom Doak, and you.  For what it is worth, you are in good company.        

[Connor Dougherty]

Two things I'm surprised haven't really been mentioned and why I will now chime in:
1. The bounce on a wedge. This ultimately is what creates the bunker shot. I have wedges with 4, 14, and 8 degrees of bounce to account for the softness of the sand. Should that be legal? How do you even begin to regulate that? Has this been the reason bunkers are easier to play from all along?

2. Match Play vs. Stroke Play. This, to me, plays a huge role in the maintenance of bunkers. The reality is if I find my golf ball in the shoe print of a golfer in the group in front of me, and as a result, I leave my first shot in the bunker, hit up, and two putt out of frustration (compared to getting up and down), and then miss the cut of some event by a stroke the penalty is severe. The goal is to create an even playing field for a large number of people, and it's the same reason that, for the most part, I've advocated for relief from divots.

In match play, if a person in the group in front leaves a footprint, both players have to deal with the hazard. They, in effect, are playing the same golf course. But most importantly, the worst that comes from getting a bad lie is the loss of a hole solely against your opponent, not several strokes when 1 can be the difference between playing in the US Amateur and being an alternate.

I'm not advocating a side yet, because I've seen both work and while I want to have the golf course play fair for stroke play events, I also want the architectural integrity of the golf course survive for even the best players.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,

I do not know the stats either and I am sure that though it is the high profile closures that get the press it will be the case that lower end courses closing will not be reported so widely. My comment was more a general point about the state of the USA market and the number of closures (and end of the world predictions by some on this site) compared with the state of the UK market.

I think part of the difference between our takes is I see the bunker as a hazard where as you bring in the fairness argument and it is the same for all players. I do not follow this fairness idea and believe that 'rub of the green' should play a part in the game.


The bunker issue does have something to do with it where the obsession with perfection that comes out of the USA even going as far as irrigating the sand in bunkers at some courses just goes to pushing up the costs of playing the game.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

An important aspect of the 'manicured sand ' vrs 'non-raked sand' discussion is the role of the rules of golf.

If you are in a vile spot in a sand bunker you can take a penalty drop, but,...........that drop must still be in the sand bunker.

Now if the rule was that you could take relief under penalty outside the sand bunker it would provide for no raking of bunkers, which would mean less maintenance time/cost, less need to purchase expensive sand etc and sand bunkers would once again be a real hazard instead of what these days are in some, but not all cases, merely phoney/fake/photogenic hazards.

However, such a revision in the rules would still allow -

a) the skilled player to attempt a recovery shot if they wish to do so
b) the lessor player/beginner/novice or those suffering from say, an injury that is perhaps worsened by wacking into sand/bunker lips, to take relief at the cost of a shot

What I would add it that perhaps a 1 shot penalty is not sufficient and that perhaps a 2 shot penalty would be more appropriate.

All the best

[Andrew Buck]

An important aspect of the 'manicured sand ' vrs 'non-raked sand' discussion is the role of the rules of golf.

If you are in a vile spot in a sand bunker you can take a penalty drop, but,...........that drop must still be in the sand bunker.

Now if the rule was that you could take relief under penalty outside the sand bunker it would provide for no raking of bunkers, which would mean less maintenance time/cost, less need to purchase expensive sand etc and sand bunkers would once again be a real hazard instead of what these days are in some, but not all cases, merely phoney/fake/photogenic hazards.

However, such a revision in the rules would still allow -

a) the skilled player to attempt a recovery shot if they wish to do so
b) the lessor player/beginner/novice or those suffering from say, an injury that is perhaps worsened by wacking into sand/bunker lips, to take relief at the cost of a shot

What I would add it that perhaps a 1 shot penalty is not sufficient and that perhaps a 2 shot penalty would be more appropriate.

All the best

I still don't understand why there isn't a middle ground between the two extremes.  

However, IMO, if sand bunkers become so severe that any player would contemplate a 2 shot penalty just to drop outside them, that is way to significant of a penalty for a shot that is "likely" a slight miss.  I'm all for some randomness (which on most courses exists today) and rub of the game.  

[Lou_Duran]

Jon and Thomas,

No doubt that the U.S. golf market is different than the UK's.  Many things here are.  But I seriously doubt that the cause of course failures is the result of "perfect" bunkers.  Our economy is consumer-led and with the public sector capturing a growing share of our GDP, we are accelerating on the trend to be more like you guys.   So, who knows, in twenty years maybe we won't be able to see much of a difference (you better hope that Asia will pick up your and our slack).  By the way, I think we paid £125 for Walton Heath-Old a couple years ago.  The $200 course we played this week compared favorably in all but the history and age categories.

If I understand Ian's notion correctly, it is that bunkers have lost some of their strategic value as a result of modern design and maintenance practices.  In support, Richard Choi offers that the (strategic?) balance (presumably, the contribution of each design feature to the whole as intended by the architect) and the integrity of golf have been compromised.

As a fairly active golfer- 50-100 rounds annually, 25-50 new courses- I don't experience what Ian and Richard assert (bunkers are too perfect).  The level of maintenance being touted as standard or common is just not there, even in the upper half of the top 100.  And neither is the bunker design and construction that propels the ball from the slopes to a perfectly level bottom.  I am fairly sure that my sampling is statistically significant, so, if they are correct, I must be well into a second or third lifetime of bad rubs of the green.

The suggestion of removing the rake to correct a non-problem is mind-boggling.  Modify the rules of golf to eliminate the rake?  Talk about opening up golf to gamesmanship.  My biggest gripe is not with architects, owners, or superintendents.  It is with the small number of self-absorbed golfers who don't clean up after their messes and don't give a second thought to anyone around them.  There is absolutely no reason why anyone can't take a few seconds to rake whatever they disturbed and leave the course in as good a shape as they found it.  Golf is a communal activity, and, unfortunately, it is not immune to the tragedy of the commons.

As Jeff Brauer suggests, we are conflating several things in this thread.  To the extent that cost is a factor in the design and maintenance budget, fewer bunkers would make sense.  However, I certainly wouldn't recommend making them more penal UNLESS the course is very wide, short, and devoid of other hazards.  Perhaps the golf business is different, but designing products to please less than 1% of the intended customers doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

[Thomas Dai]

This has to me developed into an interesting thread so thanks to Ian for initially raising the matter although I would go along with the position that "we are conflating several things in" it.

Like you Lou my understanding of Ian's notion it "that bunkers have lost some of their strategic value as a result of modern design and maintenance practices".

To me this doesn't refer to wee pot bunkers and others sand bunkers with high lips that are difficult to get out of or to advance the ball far from. These are still okay as they still present strategic value. My beef is with the modern trend towards bigger flatter sand bunkers, with low lips which I consider present pretty much no strategic value at all, except perhaps in relation to lessor players, beginners and novices or folk with awful sand bunker technique.

To a reasonably skilled or accomplished player, a flattish sand bunker is no longer a hazard at all. Indeed a reasonably skilled or accomplished player can usually advance the ball from a flat low lipped sand bunker easier/further than from the collars of rough we more and more see around the edges of said sand bunkers.

Now if the 'never rake' sand bunkers situation were in place, it would still be possible to play the ball out depending on the skill level of the player and the lie, but it would permit the lessor player a exit route, admittedly at the penalty of a shot, while still presenting a hazard of strategic value to the better player. Also, it would permit anyone a route out of a vile pot bunker should they wish to take it, as, they way the rules now are, in a medal you could be in one forever and never get the ball out, especially if it kept rolling back into your own footprints.

To me this debate has never been about about a way to cut maintenance costs. The maintenance cost aspect is merely a consequence. As to the suggestion of a 2 stroke penalty, well I inserted that to see how others thought.

An interesting debate though, and as Lou so nicely says "No doubt that the U.S. golf market is different than the UK's. Many things here are."

All the best

[Jason Thurman]

How many courses that have flat bunkers with low lips are intended to challenge better players in the first place?

The huge majority of courses have strategically deficient architecture. There are a lot of gimmicky and silly things we could do to make them more challenging. Leaving bunkers unraked is one option. Or we could plow huge dirt berms on diagonal lines down the fairways to make them more difficult, since good players hit it in the fairway more often than bad players. Or what if we just "crowned" all the back tee boxes so that good players have awkward lies on their tee shots? And we could putt internal OB at the back of every green, since good players miss long more frequently than bad players.

It's obvious that the game of golf's biggest problem is that it's too easy. But, if I play Devil's Advocate for just a minute, is it possible that someone who has put in the time and effort to hone their skill out of bunkers should be able to reap the rewards of that work? Why should maintenance practices be adjusted to make the game more equitable for players who stink? Isn't that what the handicap system already does?

Take a look at the professional sand save percentages again. Even for the best players in the world, there's a HUGE disparity between the best sand players and the worst. Isn't strategic architecture supposed to expose the gaps between players' overall skill sets and their ability to manage those gaps? What does that better than bunkers?

[Lou_Duran]

It's obvious that the game of golf's biggest problem is that it's too easy.

Is this missing   or was it a typo?

I was watching a great teacher the other day working with a young kid and his dad, both who were new to the game.  It took him most of an hour before the kid finally got the ball up in the air.  His dad was not doing much better.  Ever the positive person that he is, the teacher commented that golf is very hard to learn and that it takes a lot of time, but that there is not a more fun, satisfying game.  I hope that the students take that to heart, but in some 40 years of fairly serious devotion, it has NEVER BEN EASY and it sure seems to be getting harder.

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,

I never said it was the problem but part of the problem. Don't tell me you think there is ONE reason for the problems the US golf industry is going through

Jon

[Lou_Duran]

A few reasons why golf has been in the doldrums, mostly arising from the government dominating the economy by attempting to engineer more equal results in the name of social justice.  Easy money, risk shifting policies to promote housing had a large impact on the supply side.  Lower disposable income as a result of bad economic policy which punishes producers has led to the weakest recovery in history and dampened demand.  Add all the environmental stuff, tort liability and insurance, and already thin margins are further eroded.  Bunker maintenance is in there some place, but not real high on the list.

[Jason Thurman]

It's obvious that the game of golf's biggest problem is that it's too easy.

Is this missing   or was it a typo?

I trust the intuition of the reader.

Don't we complain as a site about the way super-thick rough around greens actually minimizes short game skills by making so many shots a "hit and hope" even for the best players? Personally, I believe in course conditions that let skilled players show their skills. That's why I like fast and firm fairways, and short grass around greens. It's also why I like bunkers that are maintained.

I'm all for soft sand varieties, deep faces, furrowing, and anything else that makes bunkers difficult while still emphasizing skill. But seriously, leaving them unraked at all times so they're more hazardous and so that skilled players enjoy less of an advantage over the unskilled? How in the hell does that make the game better?

[Jon Wiggett]

Sorry Lou, but if that were the case then why when we have the exact same situation in the UK are we not seeing golf clubs going to the wall. I still maintain it has more to do with the general business model for golf clubs in the USA being that has caused them to become debt loaded to survive.

Jon

[Jason Topp]

A few reasons why golf has been in the doldrums, mostly arising from the government dominating the economy by attempting to engineer more equal results in the name of social justice.  Easy money, risk shifting policies to promote housing had a large impact on the supply side.  Lower disposable income as a result of bad economic policy which punishes producers has led to the weakest recovery in history and dampened demand.  Add all the environmental stuff, tort liability and insurance, and already thin margins are further eroded.  Bunker maintenance is in there some place, but not real high on the list.

Lou . . Lou ...Lou
Good to see you are following through on the idea of taking these things less seriously.  

I agree bunker maintenence costs are not the biggest problem with the industry and that economic and societal issues have a much greater impact.  Nonetheless, this is a GCA board so I think it is a good topic.

As to your political views, you are of course 75% wrong (other than the supply side piece) but I will need to explain that to you when I return in October.  

[Andrew Buck]

Sorry Lou, but if that were the case then why when we have the exact same situation in the UK are we not seeing golf clubs going to the wall. I still maintain it has more to do with the general business model for golf clubs in the USA being that has caused them to become debt loaded to survive.

Jon

I would say that the business model causing debt loaded properties plays some role, but It's probably more a question of supply numbers.

If wikipedia is to be believed, there is a course for every 22.9k people in the UK, and one for ever 16.9k people in the US.  Over 4,500 courses (or 25%) would have to close for there to be the same supply dynamic as the UK.  I think you overestimate how the vast majority of golf clubs are maintained and their expense structure.  I have 12 courses within a 15 mile radius, and I would guess only one has an annual maintenance budget over $300k.

[Sean_A]

 I have 12 courses within a 15 mile radius, and I would guess only one has an annual maintenance budget over $300k.

Andrew

Its a common misunderstanding in the UK that the vast majority of US courses are expensive to play.  Indeed, the opposite is true.  But its also a common mistake that many US folks think most UK courses are links and thus cheap to maintain.

Ciao   

[Jon Wiggett]

Andrew, Sean,

I am sure you are both correct though I in Scotland the ratio is below 10,000 per course and still no closures. Sean is of course correct that many clubs pay vast amounts for course maintenance compared to 3 decades ago but there are few clubs in the UK that have a debt problem and most members clubs I have talked to recently (all highland clubs bar one) seem to have readjusted budgets so as to be sustainable without GF income.

It is certainly a case of multiple reasons.

Jon

[Ian Andrew]

Ian,

The hard part about this discussion is how quickly it goes to tour players, when they should have zilch effect on what the average course does.  IMHO, the USGA and PGA Tour can do what they need to do to make bunkers relevant for their players, and we can do what we need to do elsewhere.  Its really two different games, no?

Bunkers still matter for the 99% of average players.  

Jeff,

I end up playing with a lot of the best players at each club I work with. I've noticed that after bunker renovations they get up and down between a third and half of the time. I played with one friend who got up and down all six times in the same round.

They have the right equipment, practice the shots and the conditions allow them to be more aggressive. The big key is the lie is always perfect. They don't fear more than one or two bunkers on the course and their all fairway bunkers with major depth or a steep wall at the end.

This wasn't about the tour, but they always become part of the conversation, but it is about the elite player. Your right, the average player still struggles, but even an average player with a decent sand game like mine, its easier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Please look at my post later on in this thread about La Costa, and how I noted the difference between a Senior Tour player and the 0-8's in the Mid Am Qualifying.  There is still a big drop off between those two levels, and I am sure, a big rise from senior tour back to the main tour.  

Of course, both you and I are using small sample sizes to make our points, which is both invalid and/but still better than a dozen posts here that use TV golf as their starting point.  BTW, I watched the Web.com tour last night, because its on my course in Omaha.  That is one of the nicer clubs in town, but the maintenance levels (which they probably don't tweak much for the tourney) don't look all that pristine, nor do the bunkers.  That simply struck me as an example of the "next from the top" level that most courses have, even if they desire the ANGC look.

But, no one disagrees that players want easier lies and perfect bunkers are at least a bit more simple.  That brings us right back to your philosophical question, are they "too perfect"?  

In the end, whether a few on gca.com disagree or not, it does seem that the paying customer is willing to pay for ever more perfection in bunkers for both look and playability.  I have to think that it is both an ongoing natural progression, much like equipment improvements, and mostly human nature.  

I doubt a few merry musketeers will change it, and for the most part, am willing to accept the Majority Rules idea.   Of course, the great thing about golf is that courses all vary, and there is no one answer, so we really don't have to narrow down to a single philosophy (even if we could).  

As consulting architects, we just have to answer if the bunkers are the right fit for that particular client. This discussion at least helps form the debate, although I suspect you would get a blank look at many places to suggest the old CBM idea of running the cavalry through the bunkers!

And, as someone suggested, maybe the root of the problem is outside the bunker itself - vestiges of a once in a lifetime economy, which inflated golf expectations beyond long term sustainability, and perhaps the move from match play to stroke play.  Change either of those mentalities, and you might get bunkers reconsidered, too.